Since I was last at the shelter, a small art exhibit has appeared on the classroom storage cabinet doors. Ten children have colored in Gingerbread Man shapes and labeled the picture by describing their mood.

The afternoon shift is much less active than the morning—or it's supposed to be—as we try to bed down the preschoolers for a two-hour nap period. It's rare that everyone is asleep at once, and yesterday, we had a new boy, named for an iconic Democratic president, who was bouncing off the walls the entire time.

He finally quieted when we allowed him to sit in the library and look at books—something not normally done, because then other kids think they should be able to get up, and then...

Anyway, since I no longer had to patrol him so his forays didn't disturb the other nappers, I became available for another assignment—one welcome to a guy who has his own issues sitting quietly without a book.

I was given a stack of newspaper advertising supplements from KMart, Aldi, Walgreen's, Target, Procter & Gamble, Rainbow and Cub with an instruction to cut out pictures of food.

(Direction to any future caregivers should I spend my days in a nursing home: When Mr. Quimby gets restless, give him scissors and advertising inserts and tell him to cut out pictures. If newspapers and magazines no longer exist, remove his feeding tube.)

I asked if candy and soda were considered "food," and was told it was all right to include in this case, since the children would be using my clippings to describe their favorite meal.

Perhaps, like me, you have reached that place in life where you no longer peruse advertising inserts. You have your habits, your brand loyalties, an adequate sum of worldly possessions and sufficient income that you will not travel across town to save 49¢ on frozen peas.

But I can tell you, in the day center where I also volunteer, every bit of the daily newspaper is closely read by the guests, including the inserts selling consumer products you're unlikely to find in any homeless camp.

Part way through my work, rising children came to the table and began to help me find pictures. As we worked, I learned:

The closest items to "ethnic" foods were Tostitos, Greek yogurt and an unidentifiable picture of collard greens

I found only one picture of milk and no eggs.

I look forward to seeing which images the kids select. Will they want Kraft or the generic mac & cheese, soda or juice, roast beef or hot dogs? Will anyone actually choose the bottle of fish oil I included after the whole table insisted they loved it?

At the shelter, the families can enjoy nutritious, balanced meals each day. When they find a place of their own, will it be, as one boy told me, "next to Family Dollar"—a store that to him is a cornucopia? Will their shopping bags fill with fresh produce or with cheap and ubiquitous empty calories, sugar and salt?

Is it even necessary to ask these questions, when the menu of options seems to consist only of bad answers?

_______

*The tally from the art gallery: Four "I am Sad"; three "I am Happy"; one each "I am Worried/Angry/Mad."

I'd caution against reading too much into these selections. The moods of preschoolers can shift through many modes in the course of a day, and some kids tend to mimic the first response given, so if the first artist had said, "I am Silly," the entire mix might have shifted.

Today we filled the preschoolers' morning with a field trip to the Sea Life Aquarium at Mall of America. I can now state with assurance that most of my lifetime visits to MoA have been driven solely by my responsibility as an escort of small children.

If the Mall depended on people like me, sheep would still be grazing in the fields of south Bloomington.

Based on this morning, children with no disposable income must constitute a majority of the pre-lunch crowd.

The Aquarium is a commercial entertainment venture, like everything else at the Mall. For our kids, it was the first chance they'd had to see jellyfish, watch rays soar overhead and compare their adult buddy's size to that of sea life. Some tickled starfish, but for the most part they seemed to soak it all in at once rather than pay much attention to specific creatures or learning experiences.

Thankfully, that's the way they walked through the Mall, too.

Like most of these outings, this trip was accompanied by a contingent from a local corporation—in this case departments of Cummins Power Generation.

It was the most diverse group I've seen in my three years volunteering—not counting the fact that all but two were male. I didn't get a chance to speak much to the other adults, but I'd guess we had one African, one Chinese and a broad representation from the Indian subcontinent along with a three garden variety Minnesotans.

This was the America we keep reading about but not quite encountering in this state. It's the demographic spread meeting the economic divide. Kids without homes stolling through a monument to consumption. Strangers holding hands.

I don't know how well these trips inform our visitors about the kids or the work the shelter does, since the outings can seem closer to gym than to classroom learning experiences. Anyway, I appreciate their effort and hope some of them come away inspired to do more.

Punitive tax policy had kept the world's fastest man from competing in [the U.K.] for the past three years. Explaining Mr. Bolt's decision to skip a 2010 race in London, his agent told reporters: "He will earn a lot less by competing in Britain if he maintains his current endorsement level." Mr. Bolt competed in Paris that August instead.

Few high earners in other fields would choose France over Britain on tax policy, but athletes are a different story. [...] [N]ormally Britain takes a cut of an athlete's worldwide endorsement earnings—that means overseas sponsors in addition to those in the U.K.—proportional to the time spent in Britain.

I was steered to this Wall Street Journal item by Economist John Spry and frequent Twitter sparring partner Craig Westover.

Bolt ran six official races in 2011, including the IAAF World Championships. Had one of those events been held in the U.K., his fees for the race would have been subject to the income tax—as well as one-sixth of his world-wide endorsement income.

One source estimates Bolt's current year income totals $20.3 million, which means $3.83 million of his income would be taxed if he ran in London instead of say, Oslo.

(In the U.S., professional athletes pay income taxes in the states where they perform, as a pro-rated percentage of their salaries, but they don't pay state taxes on their endorsements.)

The article also quotes No. 1 tennis player Rafael Nadal, who makes an estimated $33 million, as skipping a Wimbeldon warm-up event because he was "losing money" by playing in the U.K.

Although making less is not quite the same as losing money, no one would blame Nadal or Bolt for exercising their right to pick where they compete and avoid the tax.

Seen another way, each event Bolt runs does contribute to his worth as an endorser. If he ran no races at all, his value would decline, as it does for all athletes, even self-declared legends.

But is it fair to say Bolt "earned" part of his endorsements in a particular race?

Perhaps. But his sponsors determine what they think his name is worth independently of a specific performance. I personally don't think one-sixth of his endorsement income is attributable to one of six races.

Less obvious, though, is the second part of the conclusion, that "punitive taxation hurts everyone."

Bolt skipping a London race deprives maybe 50,000 spectators of less than ten seconds of live ecstacy, since Bolt races only in a few countries each year anyway. The lost "economic benefit" of him performing in London is also dubious, since sports fans will still spend their discretionary dollars at soccer matches, in pubs or other entertainments.

No one needs to change the tax code to help out Mr. Bolt who, excluding his training time, will run for about three minutes a year to earn his $20 million. He's perfectly capable of avoiding the unfairness.

But by publicizing such exceptional circumstances, the low-to-no-tax advocates seek to spread the sense of unfairness to the rest of us, thereby reducing support for any taxation schemes—but especially those that tax the wealthy.

Wherever you look, the call for smaller government and lower taxes benefits most the people who have the most and have the most power to evade taxes already.

We had a full house of 20 kids in the preschool today. About five children are preparing to enter kindergarten and had some outside classroom work in the morning. There was also a session for their parents helping to orient them to kindergarten and to know what to expect when their child starts school.

I suppose for people who've never visited a homeless shelter, the image is about cots or bunk beds and free meals instead of support programs to help families get back on their feet. Here at People Serving People, the walls and elevators are papered with announcements about programs to help residents find work, prepare for interviews, take classes, develop techniques to deal with stress, tutoring kids, improve parenting skills, etc.

Under Obama’s plan, you wouldn’t have to work and you wouldn’t have to train for a job. They just send you your welfare check.

Follow the link if you want more background. Obama's offer of a waiver to states on welfare requirements means states can try new ways to get people back to work without the states losing their federal funding. Governors have to request the waiver, and some GOP governors have already asked for more flexibility of this sort. Obama himself won't change anything; the state must have a plan to get people off welfare and into jobs sooner.

Romney's statement is what used to be called a lie. The media are reluctant call out lies, so they're even less likely to point out why the lie's being floated. It's all about resurrecting the mythical welfare queens of the Reagan era and stirring up resentment of the poor.

If conservative voters really understood what's left of welfare after the reforms of 1996, they might be more supportive of the program. If they saw the programs available in our shelter, they'd see how they contribute to more stable families and better outcomes for kids.

But the discourse isn't even close to that level.

For example, did you know a family of three in Minnesota has to earn less than $12,804 (all data from 2007) to qualify for "welfare" cash assistance? And if they earned the maximum and raked in every eligible dollar for a full year, at best, they'd still only have just over $19,000 to live on.

Of just under 67,000 total recipients in the state, 26% were adults. Of the remaining 74% who were children, nearly half were kids who did not have a parent receiving benefits.

Yet read Romney's statement again. It's not only wrong about the job training; it's misleading about who is actually getting that welfare check.

I don't know how many of the kids I work with receive Temporary Assistance to Needy Families, but I do know any little welfare princesses in my classroom won't be on it for long. There's a 60 month lifetime limit on their families receiving federally funded benefits.

Though we may continue hammering away in the comment sections of those posts, it's time to move onto the third lesson, which Craig formulated this way:

A third lesson is one shouldn’t put all one’s economic eggs in the state basket. It’s also another reason “tax the rich” doesn’t work.

Williams was in a financial bind because all (most) of her revenue came from the state. In her case, the problem was a state shutdown; in the future, it might be a recession that reduces the income of the “rich,” which significantly reduces state revenue from taxes. The problem with highly progressive taxation is in dollar terms a relatively few people are supporting everyone else. They take a hit, and the ripple effect is disastrous.

The solution for Williams is multiple revenue sources, which implies a market solution.

Craig, you'll get no argument from me about the "all-in-one basket" caution, but your explanation of it betrays you once again peering from the fat end of the telescope.

The clients at All About Kids daycare are indeed subsidized, but we don't know how much of Williams' revenue came from the state. The story says, "All of her clients are low-income and struggle just to pay their $2 to $24 sliding fee." Sounds like multiple revenue sources to me.

This is one reason I picked the story to discuss. The subsidy is supplemented with client funds based on their ability to pay — sort of a progressive scheme, just like the income tax. As their circumstances improve, they pay more.

Perhaps this model could be employed more widely. Not simply, as in the case of health care vouchers, as a way to throw people out of public plans, but as a client-centered, outcome-based approach to helping people at the margins Republicans seem none too interested in.

You argue Williams' problem came from being too dependent on the government payments. I'd argue her revenue shortfall came her choosing to serve a segment of the population that is disproportionately affected by policies that favor your favorite constituency.

The shutdown occurred because the representatives of wealthy Minnesotans didn't want them to pay higher taxes, and guess who paid the price? A recession definitely affects the income of the wealthy and lowers government revenues, but it affects the low-income clients Williams serves even more.

Well-to-do taxpayers have lots of options that don't affect their lifestyles one whit. They can lay off workers, book losses against future tax bills, draw from savings or take capital gains. And the progressive income tax rates on high earners, remember, are historically quite low.

Last year, with the "help" of some tax losses, our combined effective state and federal income tax rate was 13.1%, although our household income put us right on the cusp of the top ten percent of earners in the state. We aren't hurting, and I'd be surprised those making substantially more are, either.

The second lesson is about economics and my statement “Government cannot do anything for anybody until it first takes the resources from the private sector that produces the wealth that makes compassion possible.”

Roxanne Williams is able to provide the service she does – even at her own expense – because there are millions of people going to work everyday to produce products and deliver services (and pay taxes) that ultimately provide her the resources (not just money) that make her service possible. These people go to work for their own reasons and not to help low-income parents find daycare.

Yet one of the consequences of their action is Roxanne Williams can provide daycare. Without their effort producing wealth, Roxanne Williams can’t provide daycare.

And my response here starts a second thread in the discussion:

No argument from me, Craig. The nature of government is to fund its activities through taxes. Some of us consider it a duty to pay taxes; some consider taxes theft; and most of us do what we can to keep our personal taxes as low as possible.

Also agreed, we go to work for our own reasons — and for the most part, we are not thinking about others all that much. Even when I show up as a volunteer with preschool children in a homeless shelter, I am not working purely for the children in the room that day. If I did not feel personally rewarded by my efforts, I would do something else.

So far, we're in reasonable alignment with each other. Hooray for everyone who goes to work every day to provide services, create wealth and pay taxes!

Then you say: "Without their effort producing wealth, Roxanne Williams can’t provide daycare." Roxanne Williams, though, is a private contractor. She happens to serve a low-income segment of the market, which receives some subsidy.

Many years ago I interviewed a man who was instrumental in the massive urban renewal effort that erased the Washington Avenue skid row in Minneapolis. What happened to all those people who lived and worked there, I asked.

They just went away, he said, as if that were a satisfactory answer.

That seems to be subtext of what small government advocates call "reform."

You punted my last attempt at this question, but it matters to progressives: "What happens to these low-income families and children if the government gets out of the daycare subsidy business?"

One of the boys, "K," was outside the shelter when I arrived this morning. I asked if he was coming to school, and he said no. I told him I'd miss him and hoped to see him next Thursday.

When I got up to the room, I learned he'd been put on a behavior plan, which is an escalating set of sanctions that are imposed when a kid starts to act out and is not cooperative in class.

In the week since my last volunteer day, K had stopped minding teachers and was fighting with other kids. He just wouldn't stop the bad behavior. When that sort of thing happens, the parents get involved. Today, his parents would have to come in the class each hour to check on him. They decided to just keep him with them instead.

(We had another boy, "E," whose mother had to come in once this morning. He was very subdued this morning and didn't participate in activities, but improved as the day went on. When his mom showed up, he was doing pretty well.)

There's more to the story. When I talked to K last week, he said his dad was away at work, and he missed him. It sounded like work was out of town.

Sometime early in the week, the dad came back home, and K wanted to be with him. It's possible the behavior problems were his strategy for getting sent home (in the shelter), so he could be with his dad. Being kicked out of class was actually a benefit in his eyes. In any case, he was with his dad out front when we were on the playground. I asked if I could talk to him, and the dad brought him over. I told K I was glad his dad was home, but He needed to start making better choices about how to act. I really hoped he could be in class, because I missed having him and he needed to be in school. The dad was supportive.

A girl, "A," was having her last day. Her parents have found housing and are moving into their new home.

A's mother lost her job and hasn't worked since A was born. Her dad lost his job, and then they lost their house. They went from middle class family with a sweet, well-adjusted daughter to living in a shelter.

I'm sorry I wasn't around when both parents got jobs last week. It was a huge, emotional day for them. Maybe it's good I wasn't around, because it makes me tear up just to hear how excited they were to be back on track with their lives.

That's what this place does for people — gives them a little stability until they can do for themselves. I guess you could call it welfare, but it's nothing like the welfare the MNGOP wants you to imagine — and to stop funding with your hard-earned dollars.

Reader Hal Davis forwarded me this column from a Hartford newspaper. Colin McEnroe is writing about a Connecticut court case, but he's also writing about every poor school child in the country.

I've decided that Sheff v. O'Neill is not really a legal case and
that none of [the] settlements or proposed forms of redress will ever work,
unless we change. It's a moral case. It makes a moral argument. The
problem is that we don't listen to moral arguments anymore, so you've
got to dress them up as lawsuits.

The thing that broke down worst of all was us --
the people with hope and resources -- and our supposed Judeo-Christian
values. Those values are unambiguous about what we're supposed be be
doing for others who are poor, who are sick, who are helpless. We can
do it through our churches or through Boys' and Girls' Clubs or Big
Brothers Big Sisters or through some other mentoring or intervention.
But we're supposed to do it. Those values are supposed to be the spine
of this country.

But if we lived them -- even just a little --
there would have been no compelling case to make in Sheff v. O'Neill,
because each of use [sic] would have identified those children as our moral
responsibility, a long time ago.

School choice doesn't quite get at the kids McEnroe cites, mired in "experiential poverty," who "have never been to a movie theater or
ridden a pony" or spoken to someone who has noticed their unique gifts.

Liberals have been taking a drubbing lately for making moral arguments instead of economic ones or Constitutionally principled ones.

McEnroe's piece calls us to remember the moral case for our communities and our governments.